Skip to main content
Glama

screen_creatives

Screen videos or images in Screening Room, as on the web: every respondent watches or looks at each creative itself, scores and ranks them, and says what works in the creative (message, hook, visuals, pacing, copy, call to action). One creative is a solo review; two or more are ranked against each other. You get the ranking or the solo verdict, a synthesis memo and, on the deeper tiers, expert reports and a debate summary, without individual answers.

Pick a tier; each fields the panel the web sells: quick_pulse (Quick Review, 35 respondents), balanced_insight (Balanced Insight, 150, the default), deep_research (Deep Review, 400). Your plan screens up to 2 creatives per study (Free 2, Pro 3, Max 4). Every plan can run every tier.

Pass each creative as a public https link straight to the file (PNG/JPG/WEBP/GIF up to 10 MB, MP4/MOV/WebM/AVI/MKV/M4V up to 100 MB) that opens without signing in, not a page that shows it; a link that returns a web page is refused before anything is charged.

RECOMMENDED FLOW: if the user didn't pick an audience, call list_demographic_presets and propose one or two; call preview_cost for the price; confirm with the user; then run. Studies are charged to the account's wallet at the same per-respondent rate as on the web. Price it with preview_cost(mode='comparison', comparison_tier, num_options).

Takes minutes; the tool waits up to ~15 minutes and reports progress. On error='timeout' with a sim_id the study keeps running: collect it with get_simulation, do not re-run.

Returns: { id, status, mode='comparison', topic, demographic_preset, population_size, screening_room: {tier, tier_label}, options, winner and leaderboard (2+ creatives), solo_summary (one creative), synthesis_memo, expert_reports [{lens, report}], debate_summary (Deep Review), total_responses, billing }.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mediaYesThe creatives, in order (option A is the first): 1 for a solo review, up to 2 to rank (Free 2, Pro 3, Max 4).
topicYesWhat the viewers are asked, e.g. 'Which ad makes you most likely to try the app?' or, for one creative, 'Would this ad make you stop scrolling?'
contextNoBackground every respondent reads before answering: a product description, the ad copy, a news story, the terms of an offer. Plain text, up to 16,000 characters. The result's shown_to_respondents block echoes what the panel read.
languageNoLanguage the respondents answer in. Default: en.en
comparison_tierNoDepth: quick_pulse (35 respondents), balanced_insight (150, expert reports; the default), deep_research (400, expert reports and a debate).balanced_insight
custom_audienceNoOptional filter narrowing the panel INSIDE the market preset. Keys (all optional): countries, regions, cities (each market's own vocabulary), age_min / age_max, genders ('all' | 'men' | 'women' | 'non_binary'), interests / interest_exclusions (taxonomy tags), income_min_tier / income_max_tier (affluence ladder 0-7, 7 = top), income_currency + income_min_amount / income_max_amount (REAL annual household amounts in a named ISO currency — currency is required with amounts; e.g. {'income_currency': 'USD', 'income_min_amount': 100000}), income_match ('position' = the equivalent affluence standing within each market's own income ladder, the default; 'absolute' = actual earnings at indicative FX), ethnicities / religions (multi-ethnic markets only). Preview a custom_audience with the free estimate_reach tool before paying for a run — it reports the audience size and which constraint cuts hardest. A 'small' audience is not a blocker: the panel is still delivered at the population_size you ask for, with every respondent matching the filter, and its age and gender mix follows the market's profile within the filter's age, gender, place, income and heritage terms (interest tags pick who within each group, not how many of each). Results carry panel_check (the panel's age, gender and region mix against that profile) and, for an uncommon audience, audience_note. Guide: https://crowdos.ai/mcp.
demographic_presetNoAudience preset. Use list_demographic_presets to see all options. Default: us_general_population.us_general_population

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses wallet charging, per-respondent pricing, runtime and timeout behavior, media validation before charging, plan-based creative limits, and that results exclude individual answers. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking a paid, long-running study.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but appropriately sized for a complex paid study tool, and the core purpose and creative-input rules are front-loaded. Every paragraph earns its place by covering flow, pricing, validation, tiers, timeout handling, and return fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, but the description lists the returned fields and explains the key result shapes for solo and ranked modes. Combined with the detailed input schema and operational guidance, an agent has enough information to call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is already 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains acceptable media formats and sizes, the requirement for direct public file links rather than web pages, plan-specific creative limits, tier respondent counts, and how to price a run. It also clarifies the relationship between comparison_tier, media count, and preview_cost.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it screens videos or images in Screening Room and clearly distinguishes solo review from ranked comparison. It also names the outputs, making the tool’s purpose unmistakable relative to its siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a strong recommended flow: if the audience is unset, use list_demographic_presets, price with preview_cost, confirm with the user, then run. It also explains timeout recovery via get_simulation, but it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or which sibling to use instead for other kinds of evaluation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources